text:
How to avoid or cope with a bad day where my flying felt sloppy?
This morning I went out to do a flight and I wasn’t my usual self. I was just sloppy in the pattern, not hitting my speeds, overshooting the final, radios were sub par.
Backstory. Last week I was doing well, my instructor said we need to keep this momentum and if you can, you’ll be able to do a stage check for your checkride. I was excited now this week comes along and all of what I mentioned above happened. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s times that I have as a student where as I’ll do well then other times it’s just like what’s going on today?
Some factors I believe contributed to this was a bad morning it was an early flight but I couldn’t get a ride to the airport because of Uber (external factor) then the plan I had in my head was to fly at another airport other than the one my instructor chose. And it’s ok I understand that but maybe that’s why I was just unprepared for it along with the storm that was coming in and I’m not trying to make excuses just creating a picture for Clarity.
But my question is how do pilots stay at their A game, do they ever fall off because at this point idk I just feel pooped man but I have in my head that I’m going to get it done but also I’m feeling like maybe this isn’t for me?
But I can fly, I do my maneuvers within standards most times today was just not it, man.
Any advice is well appreciated

A more specific title suggestion: "How to avoid or cope with a bad day where my flying felt sloppy?"  (perhaps including the phrase "As a student pilot,").  There are lots of reasons why a student pilot might feel discouraged, so help future readers find this one.
I left a suggested edit, but commenting as well in case you want to put "student pilot" into the title somehow.

Chances are things like that will happen to you for your entire career as a pilot.  That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with you.  Flying an airplane is a kind of art, similar to playing a piano.  And like all performance artists, some days are good days and some are bad ones as well.  I’m sure you’ve also heard the old saw that getting a pilots license is simply a license to learn.  That’s very true. As an aviator you are going to make errors. They are going to happen on every flight you make, some big, some small. The big question is what are you learning from them? From your experiences the other day, what did you learn about radio comms that can improve the situation?  What about turning base to final?  Maintaining a stabilized approach?  These events should have offered you a lot of perspective and insight in the handling and flying the airplane.  And if you’re not doing this or having these experiences, you’re doing something wrong. You should be learning something new on every single flight  and acquiring new insights into airmanship every time you’re up. There are pilots with 30,000 hours of logged flight time and they still learn something new every time they fly.  Every flight is different and unique, even if you’re flying the same route. There’s so many different variations, be it weather, aircraft loadout, winds, temperatures, aircraft condition, pattern entry locations, new airports, narrower or wider or uneven runways, ATC instructions - you name it.  And it will make every flight unique.  This is one of the reasons that a thorough preflight briefing is very necessary for preparation for any flight.  Both the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds take that advice to heart.  Even if they put on a show at Seafair multiple times, they are well aware that every single performance will be different.  They carefully consider all aspects of the flight for any differences that are obvious so they can minimize the amount of unforeseen variables they have to deal with at any given moment.  They also will fly the flight in their mind - the Blues call it ‘praying’.  It’s a kind of meditation where they will fly the entire show in their mind thinking about flying each maneuver and how they’re going to apply the control inputs throughout.
Now you may not have to do that for each of your training flights, but chair flying can be an extremely useful preparation for each maneuver as well as developing cockpit workflows for NPs and EPs in order to accomplish tasks quicker and easier.  Those posters that Sportys sells aren’t just for wall decorations.  They’re training aids for chair flying.  Make use of them prior to going on an actual flight.

But my question is how do pilots stay at their A game

The answer is they don't, and don't try to.  I have ridden motorcycles most of my life and that was my first realization of being on some days, and off my game some others.  Some days I just felt like my lines in every turn, even just going to the store, were super-crisp and I was just "on."  Other days, I was just "off."  Every maneuver just felt sloppy.  This gets more and more noticeable as you challenge yourself and strive for higher levels of personal performance.  Major league pitchers have unhittable days and days they get rocked.
So here's the answer:  I am going to have A days, and B days, and C days.  And so my job, along with my instructor, is to:

Develop my skills to the point where even on my B days, I still fully meet the standards of a pilot.  You aren't there yet, but you're a student, you're not supposed to be there yet.

Develop my own self-awareness about whether I am having an A day, or B day, or C day--and the objectivity and commitment that goes along with that, expressed through personal minimums.  "I am not having the kind of day where I can do a low IFR approach to minimums, even though I am qualified and licensed to.  So I am not going to today, period."

Develop a toolbox, a list of mitigating strategies for my C days.  Maybe that means I still fly, but only if another experienced, current pilot comes with me, or only if my weather is almost amazing.  Maybe I reschedule.  Maybe I commit to making my go/no-go decision early enough that I can still drive the 5 hours to the meeting I was going to fly to in 1.5 hours.  I set strict personal minimums for myself, and some of those are based on my full acceptance that I will have off days.

It is the combination of these things--fully accepting you will have off days and having ways to be fully safe on those off days, no matter how off they are.  And then developing the awareness to know when you are off.

Wonderful answer, +1. There is also a natural up/down cycle in the human learning process, be it aviation, learning a musical instrument, a foreign language, whatever. To the OP: you will have periods where you feel like you aren't making progress or even regressing. Just stick with it. This is natural, normal, and temporary!

If there was an answer of the year award here, this would most probably win. All the essentials in a very tight package, bravo!

This is good advice for learning to drive a car too.

This is good advice for living life. There will always be up and down days. Recognizing when you're in a down day and not doing anything critical or life-threatening, and especially not dwelling on the down days, is vital to being successful in anything.


text:
How to calculations deviation on a magnetic compass and effect of it?
I am told to do self study and mainly for the part of the formula reading and i did some research and don't understand a single thing that i read online http://opac.vimaru.edu.vn/edata/EBook/Magnetic%20Compass%20Deviation%20And%20Correction.pdf. I also not very sure what is the effect of deviation have on the compass. Can someone pls help.Thank in advance.
P.S. I did it with zero knowledge of aviation as i just take this course.

Its a bit unclear what you are asking. Are you asking what magnetic deviation is and how to correct it? Are you asking how it applies to aircraft navigation? Both? Neither?

i am asking both, thanks for asking

What exactly are you studying for?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but maybe you can ask something more specific? Is there one single calculation that you're having problems with?

the topic im studying for is compass swing

We think of the earth as having a grid of lines covering it, which re use for defining a grid-position for a place, and for using as the basis for angles for defining our direction to travel from one place to another. These grid lines are latitude and Longitude, but they are a purely-human imaginary idea, they do not physically exist.
The Earth does have a naturally-occurring magnetic field, which at the moment is coincidentally vaguely aligned with the lines of Longitude. And this magnetic field has the huge advantage that its direction can be sensed using some very special lumps of rock, ie with a compass.
Problem 1 - the magnetic field is not actually aligned with the lines of Longitude, so there's an error. This mis-alignment is called Variation (sometimes called Declination in American books) and it's a simple geometric difference between the compass pointing at one place versus pointing at another place; so the value of Variation changes depending on where in the world you are. And this is complicated by the magnetic field moving over time!
Problem 2 - you insist on mounting your compass inside a ship/vehicle/airplane which is made of meta or has large lumps of metal in it, which will push or pull the Earth's magnetic field as it passes through the ship/vehicle/airplane. This causes a directional error in your compass which is called Deviation - and this varies depending on which direction your vehicle is pointing, ie depending on where the lumps of metal are around your compass.
The acronym for working with all this is T-V-M-D-C ("True Virgins Make Dull Company"). So starting with a bearing that you measure from a chart in degrees True, you add Variation to get degrees Magnetic. Then you take into account your particular vehicle by adding in Deviation to get degrees Compass. If you fly degrees Compass, you will be flying degrees True, but you've taken into account where you are, when you are, what vehicle you're in a dn what direction it's pointing.
Simples!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is this aircraft seen over Southern California?
It looked similar in shape to the DH108 Swallow seen at the top of this website
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailless_aircraft
The best likeness I have found online (except the wings were flat and what looks like 2 large engines could have been propellers but I don't think they were that large) is found here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/mach/th...ays-ncna745806
It is the 3rd image from the top: "Dzyne's Blended Wing Body concept. Dzyne Technologies"

Do you not have a picture?  Can you give more details?  How many jet engines did you see?  Where was the jet engine located.  Approximately what was the length of the wingspan?

Are you certain that it was a jet?

Without more info it is impossible, but it might have been a canard of some kind. Google Long EZ, or VariEze, or Berkut and see if anyu of these look familiar.

Are you sure it was a jet? Maybe it was some sort of Rutan VariEze?

John Denver's crash coffin...  Actually a LongEze

That's not fair - it was actually a builder modified plane with the fuel selector placed above and behind a shoulder (in a  desire to keep fule lines out of the cabin I recall reading, vs standard locaiton of between the legs), and JD unfortunately pressed a rudder pedal, a natural enough motion, trying to reach up and back, causing an unintended roll and splash into the ocean.

.. and he was FUI, no ?

I doubt it. He had just taken possession and had been flying it for a while already that day.

No, I am not sure it was a jet and the closest picture I have found on the internet of a modern plane is the Beechcraft Starship.

Could this be what you saw:

This is a Cirrus Vision SF50

Man that thing's ugly...

While it has V-tail I'm not sure that would look very strange when viewed from below.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How much do the blades on the V22 or AW609 weigh?
It seems that the blades on the V22 or AW609 would have to be heavier than conventional helicopter rotor blades since they have to be substantially stiffer when in fixed-wing mode. Normal helicopter blades would flap beyond acceptable levels when exposed to such high forward airspeed. It also appears that since tiltrotor disc loading is much higher, conventional thin helicopter blades would sag excessively.
So, how much do the blades actually weigh?

" However, two Osprey 38-foot rotors weigh 4,654 lbs (JANE's, 1998-9, p. 557.)" this quote is from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8382030.html
That would put the mass of a single V22 rotor at 1050 kg. The quoted source dates from 1998, so some improvements may have been made, but it is unclear to which parts of the rotor this refers, so it's only a guesstimate anyways.


text:
Could high density abrasion-resistant ceramic turbine blades allow for the use of borane fuels?
In the late 1950s the U.S Air Force searched for a fuel with similar characteristics to jet fuel but with higher energy density allowing longer flight range for bombers. In 1947 the British had discovered elemental boron to be the ideal replacement to carbon as it had lower bond dissociation energy leading to higher heat of combustion, 68 MJ/kg vs 42.8 MJ/kg for JP-4.$^1$
Pentaborane B5H11 was found to be unstable, so B5H9 was used as it possessed much better stability. Pentaborane B5H9 performed well in turbojet combustors but it was found that emissions of solid boron particles upon combustion caused severe erosion of the high pressure turbine blades. Is it possible that new ceramic matrix composite turbines blade with higher density and abrasion resistance could solve this problem?

$^1$ Frietas 2018 handbook of energy density Robert A. Freitas Jr., “Energy Density,” IMM Report.

why would you assume that? 60% more flight range sounds desirable no?

that's what I've gathered, it's mostly negative. I had understood abrasion was the biggest issue, not buildup of solid material. Does this mean the fuel is only practical in rocket engines or ramjets?

Thanks. I suppose borane could make a good fuel for the Reaction Engines Skylon, since it's a conventional rocket engine but with a pre-cooler rather than onboard oxidizer.

what if two turbine sections were designed and high-pressure sand or some kind of fluid were injected to clean the turbine blades of material build-up and continuously switched?

Borane fuels are not practical for a multiple-use aircraft, primarily because there are no naturally occurring sources they could be easily derived from. This rules them out commercially, and gives a military disadvantage of being unable to utilize local supply chains.
Note that the XB-70's borane fuel was to be carried in addition to kerosene, for one high-speed dash. Even though capable of multiple flights, the military purpose of nuclear bombers would have been fulfilled in a single mission.
Modern turbines are built with tighter tolerances than those of the 1960s. This would make a fuel that deposits solid particles, as pentaborane does, more of a problem, not less.
These considerations essentially limit pentaborane to simpler and single-use engines that can tolerate this, such as rockets.
However, the fact that no space missions have used pentaborane, even when it cost nothing and had to be destroyed, suggests that its toxicity and near-impossibility of safe handling on industrial scale outweigh its advantages even in such applications.
To quote the paper,

When reading about pentaborane, a TLV of .005 ppm and indications that it is pyrophoric over a wide range of oxygen concentrations meant this was toxic material prone to ignite very easily. What is difficult to comprehend from these numbers and quantitative data is that pentaborane is as toxic as some of our Nation’s nerve warfare agents and will spontaneously burst into persistent flame in nearly oxygen deficient atmospheres.

Spacecraft are no strangers to exotic and highly toxic fuels, such as hydrazine. However, pentaborane turned out to be on another level of difficult. It's also not as high-performing as hydrogen or the record holder Li-F2-H2 tripropellant, also not used for similar reasons.


text:
What stops a plane from rolling when the ailerons are returned to their neutral position?
I am trying to learn airplane dynamics.
I made a 3D rigid body simulator using lift and drag equations but it does not behave the way I expect.
When I deflect the ailerons, it causes the lift forces from the left and right wings to differ, causing a net moment on the aircraft. This starts a rolling motion. When I return the ailerons back to the neutral position, the lift forces balance and the net moment is back to zero. The plane keeps rolling at a constant speed and does not stop. This makes sense from a physics perspective.

However, when I am flying in a commercial simulator (RealFlight RC Flight Simulator) the plane stops rolling immediately after the aileron control sticks are released. I believe this is also how a real plane behaves.
What stops the plane from rolling? There should be a counter-torque applied to stop a rigid body from rotating. Where does this torque come from? Is it angular air resistance?

See aerodynamic damping

FYI, physical behavior much more accurate than RealFlight's, especially post-stall, is found in Michael Selig's https://seligsim.com.

As noted in other peoples comments and answers, part of the answer is your simulator probably does not include Clp, also known as rolling moment coefficient due to roll rate. In addition to that, check to make sure Ixx is realistic (moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis) AND the commercial sim might have a roll rate command flight control system modelled.

This answer by @PeterKämpf should answer your question. It would also be helpful if you show how you calculate the increase/decrease of lift: without that it's impossible to find the errors in your model (if any)...

Consider the relative wind on each wing. The falling wing has the relative wind coming from in front and below and the rising wing has the relative wind coming from in front and above. In other words, the falling wing is at a greater angle of attack and so produces more lift, arresting the roll.
Note that a real plane has various other tendencies affecting roll. For instance, at high degrees of bank many planes will continue rolling into the bank even with neutral ailerons.

Yes, this is the answer. OP should modify his simulator to calculate lift separately for the left and right wing and for the tail. If roll or pitch rates are nonzero, taking the fuselage's velocity vector for lift calculations is simply incorrect.

This answer helped me pinpoint the problem. It was a bug in my simulation code. I was calculating the velocities at each wing but I unintentionally used the fuselage velocity to do the rest of the calculation. When I corrected this, the rolling stopped when the ailerons were back!

Even ignoring the airfoil, you can consider the wings to act like "fins" in that they resist rotation. Consider the case of an airplane-shaped object, with no forward speed, rolling. There will be air pressure applied to the top or bottom of the wing from the direction it is rolling, which slows it down. In your case the airplane has forward airspeed, but the "cross wind" being applied to the fins from their rotation still applies.
This effect on its own won't slow down the roll as much as the commercial flight simulator will, because there are other wing effects in practice (airfoil, angle of attack, wing sweep, wing dihedral, other control surfaces, fuselage shape) but this basic effect will at least get your plane to stop rolling... eventually.

Yes.  See Aditya's comment+link about aerodynamic damping.


text:
What does the term "Thru Pax" mean?
I am trying to find the meaning for a group of words used by professionals in the airline industry and this was one of them.

Where did you encounter this word? Some context would help.

In my college Aviation Management course. The course is called Airline Management

Potentially related: What is the origin of the term "pax"?

This really isn't an aviation question.  It could just as well apply to passengers on trains or buses.

@jamesqf knowing that this term is applicable outside of aviation requires knowing what the term means.  Since people are more likely to come across the term in the context of aviation (pilots spend much more time than bus or train operators talking about their job on the internet), this is a reasonable stack to ask on.

@Carl Kevinso:  As in the answer, isn't the meaning obvious?  At least if you're fluent in modern English.  And if not, there's an English Language Learners site, and an English Language & usage one.  Both would be more suited to questions that don't have anything to do with actual flying.  And while I've never seen numbers, I would bet that most pilots here never carry paying passengers :-)

Although the meaning might be different depending on context it most likely means "passengers passing through a stop without leaving" ("pax" is shorthand for "passengers", "thru" is shorthand for "through")
So if you have a flight from A to B and then to C and you have passengers flying from A to B and also passengers from A to C, then when you land at B, the passengers from A to B are the disembarking passengers and the passengers from A to C will be your "thru pax": They simply stay on board (or might temporarily get off the plane while it is cleaned or fueled but still continue on the same flight afterwards).

And, after the A-B pax have deplaned, the remaining passengers need to be counted... both to ensure that nobody deplaned too soon, and also that nobody is getting a a longer trip than they'd paid for. "How many thru pax did you count?" "Seven." "Okay, that's what we're expecting. We'll start boarding in about 15 minutes."

Good answer.  It seems obvious, but a suggestion would be to maybe emphasize and define the actual abbreviations themselves. (i.e. "thru" = through, and "pax" = passenger)  Again, this is obvious enough to most, but then if you knew this to begin with wouldn't the question almost answer itself?!


text:
what is + symbol on an elevation on a chart of controlled airspace?
what does this + symbol mean?It is depicted in Miami class B area and +10/70

It means that the class B starts above 1000 feet- that is, at exactly 1000 feet you are outside the class B but at 1001 you are in the class B.
Without the +, 1000 feet would be in the class B.

Why? What difference does that make?

I am no expert of aeronautical charts, but you have to draw the line at some point. I imagine that in general it is easier to plan/flight at 1000ft rather than strictly below - imagine if you have to give clearance "up to 1000 ft" or "at 1000 ft" versus 999ft or whatever.

That seems like a ridiculous and unnecessary distinction, because who is going to fly at 1000'?  Or 999' for that matter?

@Mormegil One foot, typically.

Haha, so technically, if a GA pilot flew exactly at 1,000 ft she could be legal?  1 foot below class B and 1 foot above busting FAR 91.119.  Nope, just stay outta there!

@AeroAndy Most of that shelf is over open water so you're fine by 91.119 as long as you're not within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Not that I'd want to fly that low over open water unless I were in a seaplane!

Good point @Chris. On a related note, reminds me of some fun, but not so wise, times years ago between Long Beach and Catalina Island...


text:
What mental health standards must a candidate meet in order to qualify for a pilot's medical certificates?
What are the mental health standards (if any) that a candidate pilot must meet in order to qualify for a medical certificate?
Answers for Canada, the US, and Europe would be particularly interesting to me.

Here is the description and criteria of the disorders referenced: http://mentalhealth.com/home/disorders.html

Canada:

1.3 The applicant shall have no established medical history or clinical diagnosis which, according to accredited medical conclusion,
  would render the applicant unable to exercise safely the privileges of
  the permit, licence or rating applied for or held, as follows: (a)
  psychosis or established neurosis; (b) alcohol or chemical dependence
  or abuse; (c) a personality or behaviour disorder that has resulted in
  the commission of an overt act; (d) other significant mental
  abnormality

US:

Unless otherwise directed by the FAA, the Examiner must deny or defer
  if the applicant has a history of: [...] (8) Psychosis; (9) Bipolar
  disorder; (10) Personality disorder that is severe enough to have
  repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts; (11) Substance dependence;
  (12) Substance abuse; [...]

EASA (Europe) (abbreviated):

AMC1 MED.B.055 Psychiatry   (a) Psychotic disorder   (b) Organic
  mental disorder   (c) Psychotropic substances   (d) Schizophrenia,
  schizotypal or delusional disorder   (e) Mood disorder   (f) Neurotic,
  stress-related or somatoform disorder   (g) Personality or behavioural
  disorder   (h) Disorders due to alcohol or other substance use   (i)
  Deliberate self-harm
AMC1 MED.B.060 Psychology   (a) Where there is
  suspicion or established evidence that an applicant has a
  psychological disorder, the applicant should be referred for
  psychological opinion and advice.   (b) Established evidence should be
  verifiable information from an identifiable source which evokes doubts
  concerning the mental fitness or personality of a particular
  individual. Sources for this information can be accidents or
  incidents, problems in training or   (c) The psychological evaluation
  may include a collection of biographical data, the administration of
  aptitude as well as personality tests and psychological interview.
  (d) The psychologist should submit a written report to the AME, AeMC
  or licensing authority as appropriate, detailing his/her opinion and
  recommendation.

So, in summary, Canada has a catch-all clause in that anything that "according to accredited medical conclusion, would render the applicant unable to exercise safely the privileges of the permit" is sufficient to deny a medical certificate. Europe can defer to the recommendation of a psychologist (also, sort of a catch-all). But, the US has a specific list of things that you'd have to display (and notably, depression isn't on that list). Is my understanding correct?

@scary-spice I have no idea about the exact interpretation, you would need to ask a medical specialist. There's more detail on the FAA stuff here and it specifically does mention depression. I'm no expert, but I think the language is vague enough in all countries to give examiners a lot of flexibility to deny or at least refer someone for a more detailed evaluation. Arguably, that's actually a good thing by allowing some discretion in the process.

Pondlife, I agree discretion is a good thing, and thought that Canada's and EASA's regulations were better in that regard. As far as I can tell, from what you've quoted, the US regulation provides no room for discretion for things other than what have been listed. In the link in that last comment, the only mention of depression is the wording of the question that an applicant might answer "yes" to, just as is mentioned in vortec's answer.

You say "I think the language is vague enough", but I don't think the language is vague at all in the US regulation that you quoted. It explicitly lists things that would be grounds for denial, and by the canon of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, "Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term".

@scary-spice If you follow the link in my previous comment and read the detailed AME guidelines for determining mental state, you'll see there's plenty of room for maneuver: "general impression", "deviations from normal" etc. But again, I'm not a medical professional so I don't really know what I'm talking about here. I can tell you that the US medical requirements are considered to be very liberal compared to many other countries: you can even get a sport pilot license with no medical at all.

@scary-spice The US medical form requests that you report "mental disorders of any type" (actually it asks for a whole mess of other things too, and an affirmative answer to any of them means your application will get extra scrutiny, deferral, or denial). The AME can also defer or deny your application if in their judgment you are generally unfit to fly (cf. 67.313).

@voretaq7 67.313 (b)(1) is exactly the thing that should be referenced in both of these answers then.

@scary-spice 67.313 (and its counterparts for 2nd and 1st class medicals) is basically a "catch-all" clause - it's the equivalent of FAR 91.13 forbidding "careless or reckless operation". By themselves they don't impose any specific mental health standards beyond those in 61.107, 207, and 307, they just give US AMEs discretion to defer approval to the FAA's aerospace medicine branch for things not specifically listed if they feel a condition may render an applicant unfit to fly.

@voretaq7 You say: "By themselves they don't impose any specific mental health standards". That's okay. Even if they impose general health standards like "don't make the AME think you're unfit to fly" that would be an important thing to mention, since as is, both answers make it seem like it is easier to deny a medical in Europe and Canada than in the US.

@ScarySpice Perhaps, but your question is specifically about mental health standards - If you want to ask a separate question about whether it's easier to get a medical in the US versus elsewhere that would be a great question too :)

Whatev. If the candidate needs to not show mental health symptoms such that they make the AME think they're unfit to fly, that, in broad terms, is a standard.

The US Medical Certificate application form (FAA 8500-8, the thing we fill out online now) includes a question asking if you have or have ever been diagnosed with Mental disorders of any sort; depression, anxiety, etc.
If you answer yes your application for a medical is subject to additional scrutiny, and per the FAA's guidance:

An applicant with an established history of a personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts, a psychosis disorder, or a bipolar disorder must be denied or deferred by the Examiner.

For further reading you can find references to the relevant regulations, examination techniques, and guidance on dispositions (Issue, Defer, or Deny the application) in the FAA's Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, and in FARs 61.107, 61.207, and 61.307 (for the first, second, and third class medical standards, respectively).

So if you have been diagnosed with depression, you would answer "yes" to the question, but then what? The FAA's guidance talks about personality disorders with overt acts, and psychosis disorders, and bipolar disorders, but says nothing about what would happen in the case of somebody with depression.

@scary-spice Your AME would ask you what your diagnosis was, and likely defer your application pending a report from a psychiatrist that you're unlikely to do anything stupid/destructive with an airplane. (They would also need to clear any medication you may be taking with the FDA's list of approved medications, as many are disqualifying in themselves.)

You should reference 67.313 (b)(1). It provides the statutory source for that discretion to be exercised.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Voltage induced in high-tension magneto ignition system
Why is there no voltage induced into the secondary winding (in high-voltage step-up transformer) when the ignition switch is closed (OFF).
When the current flows in the primary winding of the coil a magnetic field is generated. This interacts with the flux from the magnet. Assuming that the ignition switch is closed, the flow of alternating current created by the interaction of the two magnetic fields will flow to the ground. Will the flow of alternating current in the primary (while the ignition switch is closed, OFF position) induce a current in the secondary? If it does not, why not?

Can you edit to make it relate to aviation a little more please?  As it currently stands it might get a better response on EE.SE

I assume you're talking about an aircraft mag.  Mags are never really OFF off.  Instead of ON/OFF, it's more like ON, and "on but not on enough to work".
With the ignition switch OFF, grounding out the primary, the alternating current generated in the primary as the mag spins flows to ground, and it does induce a voltage in the secondary as the current alternates, but this voltage is much too low to be able to jump a plug gap.  So the mag is effectively off if not totally off.
To get a spark, the flow of alternating current in the primary needs to be fully cut off by the opening of the points within the primary to create a field collapse strong enough to generate sufficient high voltage to be induced in the secondary.

It makes perfect sense.
The amount of the voltage induced in the primary coil is determined by the rate at which the flux changes (as well as the number of turn of wires in the coil), therefore a collapse of the magnetic field provided by opening points will result in a high induced current.
If a reciprocating engine were to run at extremely high RPM, would it provide a rate of flux change high enough to induce a high voltage in the secondary if the ignition switch were to be closed - OFF position?

Perhaps but I'm guessing the RPM would have to be extreme and the mag would blow up anyway lol.

@Simone I doubt you could turn a piston engine fast enough for the magneto to still make a spark when the switch is off.  For the alternation to emulate the collapse time from points opening the engine would need to turn twenty or more times normal operating speed -- call it 50,000 RPM.  There'd be nothing left of the engine by the time you got the propeller hub turning that fast.


text:
Are planes allowed to fly through a planned professional fireworks display?
I was watching 4th of July fireworks tonight, and I noticed a very low plane circling the fireworks display.
I'm wasn't sure of its altitude, but I would estimate around 1000 ft or no higher than 1500 ft.
I'm thinking, "that's pretty low around here", and "it would be cool to be in that plane, with that view."
The plane then turns sharper toward the fireworks, then flies right through the middle of it, as fireworks are going off around the plane.
The plane then circles around again and flies just above display this time.
Is this even allowed?
If not, how would this pilot be held accountable/caught?
If so, how is this safe?

Depends on if the fireworks took out a TFR or not. Either way it isn't smart. It isn't unheard of for aircraft to be the source of the fireworks, EAA has done some pretty amazing glider shows with fireworks.

Fireworks don't typically get up to 1,000'. Some can, but most are a few hundred.  If the plane is at 1,500' then it is probably WELL above the fireworks, even though at times it will appear to fly through a burst. I've landed when fireworks have been going off nearby (mile or three away), and you're pretty low on final before you're level with the bursts. Even at 1,000' it's all still below you.

It's pretty hard to estimate the altitude of an aircraft flying overhead, unless you're very familiar with that specific aircraft type and it's size at different distances. Living under an approach to a major airport and knowing the altitudes used well, I know the airliners are coming over at 7000ft, but if you don't know that they appear to be almost level with the treetops sometimes.

Related

The fireworks are not very interesting from the seat of a plane. They are usually not shot off in unpopulated areas, therefore the minimum altitudes apply. It might be legal in this case, but not worth it. The answers explain why it might be difficult for the almighty ATC to catch you if you are illegal. Sweeping searchlights are fun though.

Most fireworks go no higher than 1200 ft and consumer sized stuff is more around 500ft and below. which is fairly low for most regimes of flight for all but general aviation planes and planes taking off/landing. With this in mind your main point of concern would be shooting them off near an airport, or people flying low and slow near your display.
I cant find any regulation explicitly forbidding it although its unwise and it most likely would be considered "careless or reckless operation as per §91.31" if you flew directly (and deliberately) into a display at low altitude, Fireworks are noted in the NOTAM's and it is the pilots responsibility to make themselves aware of all flight risks and en-route information as per § 91.103 Preflight action. You can see a good example here in todays NOTAMs listing various firework displays and their locations.

(source)
Its also the responsibility of the launcher to file the NOTAM in the first place.

I'd imagine it's illegal based on the info found in these articles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/04/video-shows-drone-flying-through-fireworks/#6fcc908163c0
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/faa-investigating-fireworks-drone-flights/#734d1ef72a96
I know that these articles refer to drones, but an out of control manned aircraft is a bigger threat than a tiny drone.
As for holding the pilot accountable, I'm pretty sure ATC in the area has information on the aircraft which could probably be used to figure who was flying the aircraft at the time.

This really isn't applicable, the rules for drones and piloted airplanes are fundamentally different.

You also assume that there is ATC in the area, or that the aircraft is identifiable to ATC which isn't always the case. If the aircraft does not have ADS-B, has the transponder turned off, or just has Mode-C with 1200 punched in then it just shows up as a contact on ATC radar, if there is radar coverage in that area.


text:
What would cause an abrupt increase in engine noise after takeoff on the Boeing 737-800?
I flew last week on a Boeing 737-800, I was in row 7, so just in-front of the wings.
I know from experience that there is a significant difference in engine noise from the front to the rear of the aircraft, up front you get more of the buzz, towards the back you get more "roar" engine exhaust noise.
However on this occasion the thing that struck me was an abrupt change in noise at about 1 minute from takeoff, not sure on altitude, but probably around 2000ft.
The takeoff (EMA) was 100% normal, straight climb no significant turn.
At this (estimated) 1 minute mark, the right-hand engine suddenly got louder, a harsher buzz, but seemingly no change in RPM (no pitch change). I would say inside the aircraft it almost doubled in volume.
There was no obvious added vibration to the airframe.
The flight went on as normal (4 hours to ACE Lanzarote) and the noise subsided as we reached cruise.
What could cause this?
A few things went through my mind: undercarriage retraction(?). Bird strike, blade damage, flame-out, resonance, internal changes in the engine such as guide vane angles, engine working loose!

I would suggest certain things were done my the pilot to cause such noise. :)

How do you know the RPM didn't change? You could also have been flying noise-abatement procedures that required them to maintain lower noise levels around populated areas.

@RonBeyer - I can't know for sure, but the change was abrupt, and there was no change in the pitch of the noise (so unlikely it was a throttle change)

It may have been a change in wing configuration, which could have affected the acoustics, perhaps with a bit more throttle added in.

I experienced the same thing. As I was deplaning,  I asked the F/O who was standing in the cockpit doorway. He stated that the airline had an agreement with the engine manufacturer that required a reduced-thrust takeoff (as long as runway length supported it) with an increase in thrust at 1500'. I was surprised because I thought all takeoffs were done at max/near max thrust. He said the procedure reduced engine wear.

Good to know, thanks

The buzzsaw sound is usually the fan blades breaking the sound barrier.
Could be the elevation change, temperature, and humidity caused the sound to be more pronounced at that time, or perhaps the pilots increased the thrust on that engine due to cross winds or for some other reason.
Here's a youtube video with a similar noise:

The noticeable  uptick in noise from the engines after a lull in noise could have been the pilots adding thrust to resume climbing the aircraft after a momentary level off to comply with an ATC instruction to maintain a particular altitude followed by a clearance to resume climb to a higher altitude.

This is the sound of take-off trust being reduced to the climb trust. Usually reduced at 1500ft. It can also work in the opposite way where there would be an increase in trust and engine noise.

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.


text:
What are the durations of strokes and events in a 4-stroke engine?
I'm learning about engines, and I understand the basics of how a 4-stroke engine works, but I've seen lots of true or false questions such as "The power stroke is shorter than the intake stroke" or "The power stroke is longer than the power event". What's the difference between strokes and events, and where can I see more about how long each one takes?

You can also check out some of the questions over on Mechanics.SE since your question isn't unique to airplanes.

This is confusing due to terminology (mis)use. Three things that get confused are the four processes in an Otto cycle engine, the mechanical motion of the piston, and the opening/closing of valves. Stroke can mean any of the four processes or the mechanical motion of the piston. Event has been used to describe the processes and an opening/closing of a valve. You may need to clarify which thing you mean if a conversation gets confusing.

Wikipedia might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_engine  But this is not really an aviation question.

If you want to understand engine timing, study timing diagrams and their explanations from camshaft companies, not wikipedia.

The duration of the stroke is simply the time the piston takes to run from the bottom to the top of the cylinder or vice versa, half a rotation.  So if the engine is running 2000 rpm, or 33.33 revolutions per second, or 16.66 strokes per second, the stroke duration is .06 seconds, half of one full revolution.
That's the physical mechanical stroke.  However the "events" overlap the strokes.  Ignition on an aircraft piston engine starts normally around 24 degrees before Top Dead Center, so the power "event" actually starts before the compression stroke is completed.  Same with exhaust; the exhaust valve may open slightly before the power stroke is complete (piston not quite at bottom dead center) and the intake valve may open just before exhaust stroke is complete.
This is all done to take advantage of inertial effects of the mass of the air fuel charge.  There is a lot of overlap of all these events with the mechanical stroke and is a function of valve and ignition timing, so for a given engine you need to look at a diagram of the timing points for ignition and valve opening/closing for that particular engine.

It seems your answer is math challenged. If a stroke is half a revolution you need twice as many strokes as revolutions, not half.

The stroke duration, time from TDC to BDC, is half a revolution.  Don't follow you.

If duration drops, frequency goes up. F=1/D. They move in opposite directions. By definition it is mathematically impossible to halve both frequency and duration at the same time.

It is not useful to describe duration with time units, as that is engine speed dependent. The appropriate units for engine timing is degrees of crankshaft rotation, as this is consistent no matter what speed.

Stroke in this context means the duration of one of the four processes (intake, compression, power, exhaust) in a four stroke engine. An illustration shows the mechanics:

Duration of each process is measured in crankshaft degrees and is shown with a timing diagram:

Events are points in time which can be used to identify the beginning or end of a process.
In this example, the intake stroke starts with the intake valve open event (15 degrees before top dead center) and ends with the intake valve close event (30 degrees after bottom dead center). The intake close event also starts the compression stroke, which ends with the ignition event (35 degrees before TDC). The ignition event begins the power stroke, which ends with the exhaust valve open event (50 degrees before BDC). This starts the exhaust stroke which continues to the exhaust valve close event (20 degrees after TDC).
The strokes do not align with TDC and BDC because it takes time for a valve to open or close, for a flame to combust the entire fuel/air charge, or for air/fuel/burnt gasses to start or stop moving. Some may argue that the power stroke does not begin until TDC, and you may notice that the intake and exhaust strokes overlap. The timing diagram makes everything easy to see.
edit
Valve timing events are controlled by the camshaft(s). For a more detailed discussion of timing events, see this article:

The Timing Events -
  The valve timing events occur in this order of importance (well, this is debatable, somewhat).
  1. Intake valve closing (IVC)
  2. Intake valve opening (IVO)
  3. Exhaust valve closing (EVC)
  4. Exhaust valve opening (EVO)

No.  The very definition of an engine's "bore and stroke" is the cyl diameter and the length of piston travel from TDC to BDC.  The intake/compression/power/exhaust "events" overlap with the strokes due to ign and valve timing, as my answer said.

@JohnK OP is asking about "intake stroke", "power stroke" and which is longer. This obviously refers to the processes which differ in duration, not the mechanical piston motion which is always 180 degrees.

so.... when the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time, is that the haust-in stroke? OP is confused about strokes and events. "Power event" starts at ignition, before completion of the compression stroke.  The flame has started, but the piston is still compressing the mixture and no power is being generated until the piston passes TDC.  Stroke is a geometric term related to piston travel, not timings of the valve and ignition.


text:
What airplane model was this historic propeller attached to?
I have a 9-foot historic wooden biplane propeller with brass edges. It does have a serial number, but it is tough to read. 2250 DN 152 6' 6" is what it appears to say. I am attaching a photo of it. Does anyone know what model it may have come from / how to find out which one?

Can you take a picture of the serial number? Provide exact measurements of the blades?

I'll go out on a limb and guess that the propeller is 6 feet, 6 inches long.


text:
Flight planning tools - Data foundation
I would be interested to learn how GA Flight planning tools work regarding the calculation of the necessary information for flight plans where you usually would use the manual charts (performance, endurance, range...) How do these platforms provide this info? Most of the info for old planes is from the 50,60s where no digital data has been provided and manufacturers don't give away these data usually. And data like performance, endurance etc is aircraft specific and necessary to do the right calculations when I do it manually.
My goal is to provide a platform to do it digitially. What do you think is the right approach to provide data like this to the platform.
When I start planning for a flight, charts in the manual are needed to plan properly (Landing and takeoff lengths, enroute information, endurance, range) This is mostly provided just as a chart and would be great to work digitally with.

Can you be specific about what information in the flight plan you are looking for? Usually this is pretty basic, things like fuel required, time enroute, etc.

just edited the question.

In my experience, these tools just ask the pilot to enter a few key performance numbers and then use some very simple, generic calculations to generate the flight plan. That's good enough for most purposes in GA, and it means the tool provider doesn't have to provide the aircraft performance data. If you create an account on fltplan.com or 1800wxbrief.com and play around with aircraft settings you'll see what I mean.

The non-digital manufacturer data provided in the form of charts or tables can be analyzed with regression analysis to develop fairly accurate performance models, a single formula to predict takeoff distance given inputs of density altitude, weight, slope, etc., for example. I have done this with many of the older aircraft I have flown; I don't know if that is what the developers of flight planning software use, however.

Garmin Pilot requires that I enter my fuel burn (in gallons per hour) for my aircraft. It uses that to calculate fuel required, but doesn't account for things like holding on the ground, taxi, take-off or landing. Endurance is simple from that (capacity/burn=range in hours * speed = range in miles). Take off and landing lengths are not part of a flight plan (but you do have to know it).

Regression is something I haven't thought about! So it would be a multi-variate regression I guess?. My idea would be to deliver a full fledged tool that accounts for a full flight plan as easy as possible. Takeoff and Landing lengths at least have to be planned into in Germany.

This is really more of an open ended design question, it almost sounds like you are asking us to figure out how to make your app for you.  I'd recommend thinking through your design instead, and asking specific questions when you are unsure of technical details.

Didn't mean to ask for that and appreciate your feedback, but I was more interested in a general thought on that.

Many of the modern flying apps like Foreflight do most if not all of these calculations for you once you have programmed your aircraft parameters in. As mentioned in my answer to your other question a good deal of this data is specific to the plane. W&B is specific to every aircraft and will vary depending on how the plane is setup. Things like takeoff performance and fuel burn are generally similar for an airframe but since some aircraft have multiple propellor or engine configurations available there is a variance in the numbers. Foreflight allows you to program in climb, cruise and decent fuel burn and will calculate fuel usage for you. If you have target airspeed (climb, cruise, decent) in it will calculate time en-route for you, and you can select your altitude for wind/heading calculations. The only thing I'm not sure foreflight does is takeoff distance (yet).
I have not spent any time behind a G1000 yet but I am under the impression that the various newer glass panel options can do some of these calculations as well.
Larger aircraft have FMS systems to aid in a great deal of this once you get out of the GA world.
You could try and digitize some of the functions within some of the more common POH's (C172, the various Cherokees, C150 etc) but that would not technically be legal for flight since its not the POH for the specific airframe.

Thank you Dave! Great answer and thanks for taking the time! This helped quite a lot.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
impact of low ceilings on a single runway operation like KSAN vs multiple runways like KSFO?
So I'm pretty familiar (as a pax, not a pilot) with weather and its impacts at SFO, where low ceilings or the wrong winds play havoc with the schedule.  You can't shoot parallel approaches in sub-VFR conditions, and you have crossing traffic in the middle of the field, all that good stuff.  It's way less obvious to me and/or I'm less clueful as to why this impacts a single-runway operation like San Diego (KSAN).
KSAN has a single east-west runway, and I don't think I've ever deparated or arrived on 09, it's always runway 27.  But when the fog/marine layer lingers into the morning at SAN, things get delayed and backed up.  This seems a LITTLE odd to me, because I would have expected that all of these arrivals and departures are instrument anyway, and they're all going the same direction, and there aren't any other (at least major) airports in the immediate vicinity... so why is there reduced throughput when the clouds stick around through the late morning?
I have to assume that somewhere there's a weather threshold where you have to increase the separation for takeoffs and/or landings?  If so what is that threshold and why (again if it's all instrument operations anyway?)
I'm quite sure there are good reasons, I just can't figure them out intuitively and don't know the regs well enough to know where to look.  ;)

References will be to FAA JO 7110.65, the "ATC Bible" which tells us how to work airplanes.
Arrivals
The baseline standard for aircraft separation is 3NM lateral (5–5–4b) or 1000' vertical (4–5–1a). When aircraft are on final approach they're descending to the runway and you can't use vertical, only 3NM in-trail.
At some airports succeeding aircraft on final may be permitted to reduce to 2.5NM provided certain conditions are met (5–5–4i).
However, in good weather ATC may use visual separation (7–2–1) in lieu of standard radar separation. If visual separation is used then the only thing remaining is same-runway separation: For turbojet aircraft, the #1 lander has to be "clear of the runway" before the #2 lander is over the runway threshold (3–10–3a1). Depending on aircraft speeds, the existence of high-speed runway exits, etc, this can translate to as little as 2NM separation when the #1 lander is at the threshold. Sometimes even less if the #2 guy slows waaaaay down.
Departures
Again, the baseline is 3NM separation. But if aircraft are assigned courses which diverge by at least 15º this can be reduced to 1NM (5–8–3a). If both are flying RNAV SIDs only 10º divergence is required (5–8–3c).
If visual separation is used then same-runway separation for two departures will be (if both are turbojet aircraft) 6000'-and-airborne (3–9–6a). Note that 6000' is one nautical mile anyway.
Departure-and-Arrival
Now things get really interesting. This is where the major delays start happening, and this is where an airport with parallel runways has a huge advantage over a single-runway airport.
The "normal" procedure is for ATC to provide visual separation between the arrival and the preceding departure. The only thing ATC has to do is ensure same-runway separation which (again for turbojets) is 6000'-and-airborne when the arrival reaches the landing threshold (3–10–3a2).
Depending on the types of aircraft involved, the speeds on final, braking action on the runway, etc, etc, the Tower will generally need somewhere around a 3.5- or a 4-mile gap between arrivals in order to safely get a departure out while maintaining 6000'-and-airborne. More will be needed if the departing aircraft is a heavy A330; less will be needed if the departure is a Lear 75. But broadly speaking 4NM is a good safe gap; nobody in the tower cab will sit up and start making concerned comments if you issue a line-up-and-wait instruction when an arrival is four miles out.
But if ATC cannot provide visual then the rule is, again, 3NM separation at all times. Actually there is yet another rule: separation may be decreased to 2NM at the time the departure starts rolling, if it will increase to 3NM within one minute after takeoff (5–8–4). Even so, this is twice the required separation in the visual scenario: 12000' instead of 6000'.
Again I want to be clear that there are a lot of different variables. But as a rule of thumb, when the visual is not available and we need to ensure "2 increasing to 3" separation we need a gap that is about 1NM more than usual. Perhaps a little less. So now instead of 4NM between arrivals we need 4.8 or 5NM.
This is why an airport like SFO can be much more efficient than SAN. At SAN you have to wait until the #1 arrival has reached the runway before putting the departure in position, and you have to wait to issue the takeoff clearance until that arrival has cleared the runway. At SFO you can put the departure in position on the parallel at any time and then clear them as soon as the #1 arrival has touched down.
That means Approach can keep sending the arrivals in at minimum spacing and Tower is still able to launch departures.

Edit: ODO
There is a delay program into SAN again tonight, and reading the advisory I see that they are running Opposite-Direction Operations. These come with another set of stringent separation requirements (JO 7210.3 2–1–38), which will generally be: the departure has to be established in a turn that will prevent conflict before the arrival reaches a ten-mile final.
That is a very onerous requirement if there's any kind of volume at all. They are mitigating it somewhat by bringing in a bunch of arrivals to Runway 9, then holding arrivals (or vectoring them) to create a large gap in order to get several departures off Runway 27. But even with that mitigation their arrival rate is severely reduced: If they're using the same runway for arrivals and departures they can work 24 inbounds per hour while still getting departures out, even down to Low IMC when using Runway 9. But when they are running ODO the rate goes down to 16 per hour.

This is an astonishingly good set of answers.

I don't know about the local situation at KSAN, but usually if the ceiling & visibility are low, the airport needs to support ILS CAT II or CAT III operations, instead of only CAT I. For CAT II and CAT III operations, the ILS sensitive areas need to be free of obstacles to make sure the ILS signal is not disturbed. In Europe, we have an ICAO guideline that recommends that the separation should be increased to enable the landing aircraft to clear the runway and ILS localizer sensitive area before the following aircraft reaches a point 4 NM from touchdown. This is a major driver of delays in LVP

This also means that it is even harder to squeeze a departure in between landings, because it disturbs the ILS localiser signal. To see what can happen if one attempts a fully coupled ILS Cat III landing without signal protection in place, see this answer, and this video

CAT I gets you pretty darn low @DeltaLima. Conditions below 200-1/2 are not super common. One thing that is relatively common is conditions below 800-2 which is when ATC has to protect the LOC/GS critical areas when an aircraft is inside the outer marker... but there are exceptions for aircraft actually using the runway to depart or arrive. They generally try to place the GS antenna so that the critical area is on the less-used side of the airfield but that may not always be possible. Bottom line: You're right, this can be yet another reason why spacing on final needs to be greater.

Having suffered through morning departure delays at KSAN, I can say I wouldn't wish it on anyone. The issue is worst when the fog rolls in around 5-6 pm the day before. That stops arrivals when the visibility and ceilings are below minimums. Since no one arrived in the evening, there's no aircraft to depart until the fog clears enough for morning arrivals.
The issue as you noted is that the prevailing winds are off the ocean, so RWY 27 is pretty much the norm. The problem is the rising terrain east of the airport means there's no ILS for RWY 27, only a LOC/DME or RNAV/GPS approach. Looking at the approach plates for RWY 27, you'll see the minimums are 700 feet and 1 3/4 miles visibility. When the fog rolls in, 300 ft and 1/2 mile are not uncommon. When that happens, the airlines just have to wait it out.

They were landing RWY 09 last night... the ILS Z has minimums of 200-1/2. There were still EDCTs with four or five hours' worth of delay.

@randomhead That helps get the planes in when the wind allows for it. But if you're not waiting for a plane to arrive, 5 hour departure delays are probably due to conditions elsewhere in the system. Since the FAA expanded the SWIM concepts, you could be on ground hold for an issue at your destination or anywhere along the route. Here in FL, when ZJX gets saturated due to a line of thunderstorms, everyone in central and south FL is stuck if you're headed north.

This GDP is not a Flow Control Area like you see at ZJX, it is specifically targeted due to demand (and operational constraints) at a single airport.


text:
What kind of information is shown on airport surface traffic surveillance displays?
What kind of information is displayed by the ground surveillance radar scope on Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (A-SMGCS) or similar systems like ASDE-X?

ground surveillance= aircraft+vehicles the display that shows the information about who's moving in the ground.

I think he's asking about the display the controller sees with an ASDE-X scope or something similar, and I think that's a great question (if that doesn't get outside of scope -- no pun intended).

Related

@RalphJ Exactly, that's why it's related: this is the ground-based equivalent of the other question. I think for anyone interested in what ATC (including ground control) can see on their screens, it's good to make that link

first I'm a she :p and second thank you for editing my question because I'm new to this and find it hard to express what I need to know. thx again

Just to confirm: You want a detailed explanation of what each table and icon/Datatag on that screen is showing? I have not worked with ASDE-X before, but the screenshot awfully looks like a representation of simulated traffic from a flight simulator?

yes that's what I need to know !

@LazyBrain Would an explanation of the screenshot suffice or are you looking for a real ASDE-X screen (which I would have to hunt down).?

I would be thankful for a real ASDE-X one !

Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS) provides controllers (eventually pilots and  vehicle  drivers)  with  situational
awareness on the movement area and  normally  consists of three type of sensors. Surface movement radar, MLAT and ADS-B.

The kind of information is displayed to the controller is dependent on what are the sensors used and the capability of aircraft and vehicles on the ground.

If the A-SMGCS is equipped with Surface Movement Radar (SMR) it can display the moving vehicles and aircraft on the maneuvering area. (except in areas where tracking is inhibited ) to the controller. But manual correlation is required to identify the target.
If ASMGCS is ADS-B capable, controllers display will show Aircraft or vehicle  Identification (ACID), Essential Flight Plan details like destination etc and type of aircraft also in addition to the exact location of the aircrat or vehicle. For this to work, Aircraft/vehicle should be ADS-B capable.
using  MLAT (Multilateration ) ASMGCS system displays postion and ACID and other FPL details to the controller if the aircraft SSR transponder is in operating mode. System correlate the transponder code with the flightplan.

Depending upon the level of ASMGCS operation , it can also display the taxiway route, SID, Runway assigned etc to the controller.
If the target is obtained from ADS-B or MLAT then it is called a cooperative sensor target. It will be displayed in a different symbol.


text:
Is it possible to load (and not activate) the approach procedure on a Garmin 1000 or 430?
I noticed sometimes when I fly with a G1000, or Garmin 430 and am doing multiple practice approaches I can't always load my next approach. It forces allows me to activate the approach, which would sequence me to the IAF of the next approach, and sometimes I may not be cleared to or ready for that.
Why is activate the only option?
How do you get around this?

Why is this airplane equipped with both a G1000 AND a GNS430?

edited the word "and" to "or"

If you take a look at the manual for the 430 you will see that you can only load one approach at a time.

Turn the large right knob to highlight ‘Load?’ or ‘Activate?’
(approaches only) and press the ENT Key. (‘Load?’ adds the procedure
to the flight plan without immediately using it for navigation
guidance. This allows the pilot to continue navigating the original
flight plan, but keeps the procedure available on the Active Flight
Plan Page for quick activation when needed.)

The 430 only allows one approach to be loaded then subsequently activate because this is the flow of a general IFR flight and the approach is not technically in the flight plan (its just "primed"). You should know the most likely approach based on winds and weather before even departing. Once en-route you may get assigned a different one but either way you can load the likely approach en-route. If you know your transition point you can even select that as your approach start. If you are unsure, VTF (Vectors To Final) is generally safe with a change when needed. Since the approach is somewhat side loaded and not in the actual flight plan, activating it will defeat all other navigation and take you to the chosen IAF (or nearest leg for VTF).
The other reason that the unit is built this way is approaches rarely follow each other in quick succession. There is often a hold in between or possibly more en-route flight, which is why the suspend button is there (and important for missed approaches).
You are likely missing some of the procedural work that occurs on a real IFR flight. Sims are fun to just hop from field to field flying the ILS but that is not the reality of an IFR flight plan so the hardware is not designed for that.

If you are flying X-Plane or the like and using the mouse to tune the G430 then the apparent programming time is much slower than reality as well. I would advise checking out something like this and you will see how much quicker you can really program a 430 when you have tactile knobs.

Here are some thoughts.

Do you still have a previous approach loaded / activated?  Can you delete the old approach before loading the new one?
Are you in the middle of a missed approach?  Try unsuspending.

If neither of these work, see if you can provide specific examples of approaches that do and don't work properly.

Yes, both allow you to “LOAD” an approach without “ACTIVATE”-ing  it. Slow down for just a moment when plugging in the approach. Or, better yet, practice doing it in a AADT or higher sim or on the ground until it is muscle memory.
Try finding Max Trescott’s G1000 book.


text:
What needs to be done when experiencing severe turbulence at an altitude of FL270 with No ATC and Mode C failure?
Flying at FL270, you experience sever turbulence and Mode C failure, and the ATC channel is heavily Occupied, what should a pilot ideally do?

There is a wide range of hypothetical circumstances which can be described by your question.  For example, a "heavily occupied" comm channel, still works.  How does one know they have a Mode C failure, and why might they not have Mode S? What kind of severe turbulence--I have been in mountain wave where I was descending at 5000+ FPM but in a full power climb, with a smooth ride. That might be different from spine crushing turbulence of flying through convective turbulence.  And with those differences (both are severe turbulence) which one dictates an immediate deviation?  Specifics, please.

Why would you make an emergency landing because of turbulence?

In case of imminent danger remember these three words: aviate, navigate communicate. In that order.

Aviate: make sure you keep flying the aircraft, and keep it flying in one piece.
Navigate: know what is around you and control where you are going. Avoid crashing into anything or anyone else.
Communicate: let ATC and/or other aircraft know what your intentions are.

If we apply that to this situation:

Aviate: Immediately reduce speed to maximum turbulence penetration speed Vb or, when published for your aircraft, the optimal turbulence penetration speed Vra. Control your airspeed, don't stall. Control your attitude; keep up up and down down.
Navigate: Identify whether a deviation of your clearance would improve the turbulence situation (e.g. because you flew into turbulence caused by a Cumulonimbus, turning / climbing may get you clear sooner). Now that you have identified a way out, think about the implications: being in Cumulonimbus is bad, but flying into Cumulus Granitus (a.k.a. mountain) is worse. Are you aware of all terrain / man made obstacles around you? Is there other traffic? (abuse the TCAS display for this, if outside of cloud do a visual scan). Especially vertical deviations (common in severe turbulence) of your clearance may bring you into traffic from the opposite direction. Consider a lateral 45 degree deviation of your path (terrain / weather permitting). And don't forget 1.: keep flying the aircraft.
Communicate: Only when 1. and 2. are under control and as soon as you get the chance, let ATC know what you are doing and why. Oh, and don't forget 1. and 2.: keep flying the aircraft and don't fly into something.


text:
Procedure turn/hold required on this approach?
I am an instrument student nearing my checkride. I recently flew the VOR-A approach into KLOL as a practice approach, using ROBUD as the IAF. I was wondering if the charted hold at MOBOH is required by this procedure?

I had a few thoughts:

It seems like AIM 5-4-9 (a) would say yes, since there is no "PT NA" on the plate. Flying a real IFR flight in this case, it seems likely that ATC would clear for a straight-in approach, in which case the hold would not be necessary.
If I was flying this approach on a real IFR flight and didn't hear "cleared for the straight in approach", I would ask ATC to clarify.

HOWEVER, I'm curious if, in the absence of specifically being cleared for a straight in approach, I would be expected to fly a circuit in the holding pattern on this approach starting from ROBUD, even though I'm already inbound on the final approach course?

Hello bencpeters, welcome to aviation.stackexchange.com.

Closely related, maybe a dupe?

@Pondlife I read that one; the difference here is that there's no "No PT" annotation on this chart.

@Pondlife That other question also includes a OEI scenario.

If you start the procedure at ROBUD and your clearance does not include "cleared for straight in approach", then you are expected to do a procedure turn in the hold. In real life the first thing to do in such situation would be to query the controller "confirm we are cleared for straight in approach", they are very likely to forget it also.
In my opinion, this is an example of an error on the FAA chart, which is missing noPT annotation on the leg from ROBUD to MOFTE. That annotation is present on a Jepp chart. I've seen these kind of errors in the past and FAA is usually pretty good in correcting them, so go ahead and ask them at Aeronautical Inquires.
.

The hold is part of the missed approach. Navigation to the approach would be done via GPS, ATC vectors or via VHF to the vortac. If arriving from the North you would simply intercept the R-153 and track inbound. If arriving from the south, you could go via the vortac, go outbound on the r-333 and commence a procedure turn to the NE at MOBOH/10DME. The “Procedure NA” applies to ROBUD.


text:
In terms of communication with a computer with the receiver in a glider, is there a certain frequency I should consider?
I am part of a university team of engineers that design and manufacture a plane. My sub-team is in charge of designing an autonomous glider that needs to deploy from the plane and land in a given zone.
Here is my question. In terms of communication with a computer with the receiver in the glider, is there a certain frequency I should consider for proper communication? Or is it not needed at all?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's more about radio or computer communications than aviation.  Perhaps it can be migrated to Amateur Radio.SE or one of the computer stacks?

It would make most sense to use frequencies already allocated to drones. Even if you are not controlling the glider remotely, many drones already send information back to base (such as pictures) and it probably makes sense to follow the same protocols.

Question may be clearer if you include what communications are being done, and expand on the drone's classifications. [UAV/ROV, whatever] Mentioning what countries it will be run in may also impact answers. I would be wary about kicking this over to non-aviation stacks too quickly, as there are some rather distinct differences between communicating between two boxes on land, and between things flying... Especially if coms relate to the device's safety.

considering a frequency is very important, depending on which frequency you use and the power available the result can be from "everything works great" to "armed people come to you and take away your toys"

@Chris - Are you asking which aviation frequencies to avoid so that you don't conflict with aircraft comms?


text:
What is the purpose of the vertical splitter and the NACA duct at the MQ-9 Reaper engine scoop?
The engine scoop/intake on the MQ-9 features a vertical splitter at the inlet face, as well as another smaller NACA duct on the top cowl surface just aft of the inlet lip.
I am guessing the former functions as a vane or diverter to channel airflow to different parts of the engine presumably for cooling, but the additional NACA duct at that location seems unusual (another inlet for an inlet?).
Is that NACA duct meant to modify the airflow within the engine scoop? Or is it specifically routed to another part of the engine altogether?

Went to do some research after @niels nielsen's answer; the engine being used on the MQ-9 is the Honeywell TPE331-10. As Niels has rightly pointed out, the turboprop engine has its inlet facing the rear, and the turbine exhaust faces forward (I believe this is known as reverse flow).
Screen grabs from the Youtube video below. The left image depicts the aft section in off-white (gold flanges are to the prop driveshaft), with the intake below. The right image depicts the turbine exhaust, which faces forward.
Now to answer the question: inferring from this Alamy stock photo, the splitter for the main scoop diverts the airflow into two channels for the main engine intake (the two red kidney-shaped covers). The NACA duct along the centreline is for a separate cooler (the rectangular opening).
Additional photos also show how the air is routed around the engine. The left picture shows a duct that likely comes from the port air channel, which is connected to a plenum(?). The right picture shows a clearer internal view, without the duct. The duct exits are circled in yellow. I am guessing this is the same on the starboard side.
From the information that I could find, this is my guess on how the internal ducting is done. Please excuse the crudely annotated screenshot:

The NACA duct is probably routed to a gearbox oil cooler. The turboprop engine has its air inlet at the prop end of the engine, which means a splitter is needed to divide the incoming air flow into two ducts, one on each side of the engine, in order to conduct the air back to the inlet.

Thanks for the clarification; it had not occurred to me that the turboprop was a reverse flow type. Did some more research and found several pictures which corroborate with what you mentioned.


text:
How is the total drag variation with velocity related to altitude?
Here in the question given I am confused how to relate the altitude with the given plot of total drag and velocity.

At higher altitude, density is lower. For the same true airspeed and the same drag coefficient, higher altitude will have less total drag.
However, there are factors affecting drag coefficient itself:

Due to the lower density, the lift coefficient must increase for the same TAS. This results in increased induced drag.
Decreasing density also decreases the Reynolds number, which increases the skin friction drag, especially for speeds as low as the ones shown in your graph.

Therefore, it can be expected that the trend will invert below a critical speed.
The answer is h2 > h1 from the above rationale.

I thought the exact same reason... but the next question asking about the stall angle confused me. Now I got it. Thanks.


text:
How does ceiling relate to IFR and VFR?
I'm working on a Python script that takes in metar data and decides if an airport is VFR/IFR/MVFR etc. This is the website that I'm getting the info from:
https://www.aviationweather.gov/metar/data?ids=kbwi&format=decoded&date=&hours=0.
I'm using this website to decide if an airport is IFR/VFR. I understand the visibility requirements, but not the ceiling. What if an airport is overcast at 500, broken at 5000, scattered at 3000? What takes priority to decide the ceiling requirement?
https://www.aviationweather.gov/metar/help?page=plot

The lowest one does, however it also depends on the airspace designation of the airport for the actual requirements so I hope you are taking that into account.

@RonBeyer  Thanks for the reply, so the ceiling requirements are different for class B,G,C,D airspace?  Sorry, but I don't see that in the link.  Where can I get that info?

Here is a good reference, for Class B you have to remain clear of the clouds (don't touch them), for Class G it's the same, unless you are 1200 feet AGL or less (see note on bottom).

@RonBeyer  Thanks, this will help me with my if statements.  I'm a commercial pilot, but I'm in IT, and I code for fun.  My plan is to create a map of all the ~1500 airports in the US with color codes.

Geez I must be getting rusty-- forgot that "clear of clouds" in Class G was only valid for daytime operations below 1200' agl.  Not that there are many places where Class G extends above 1200' agl anyway...

google "RGD LED weather map" Folks have plotted out the weather for Green, Blue, Red with LEDs stuck thru sectionals and similar maps before. You could query them as well, maybe get some code tips. Example:

There are many websites and apps that do this for you already.  The website SkyVector will show colored dots that indicate what the airport status is.  There is also a ForeFlight app that will show colored dots on their maps.  I am not endorsing any products, simply pointing out tools that accomplish what you are asking.
All these companies use information found in AC 00-45H.  I added color for clarification.

Personally, I would stay away from getting into the details of what class airspace an airport is currently using.  Although, the information can be easily found, it may be a challenge to code successfully.  The airspace above an airport can also change depending on whether an control tower is in use, the day of time or other factors.
The other reason, is 91.155(c).  Hence, any ceiling below 1,000 FT makes the airport IFR.

Except as provided in §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet.

To answer your other question.  The ceiling is defined as the lowest BKN or OVC layer.  In your example above, the ceiling is OVC 500.


text:
What should a Pilot do if they encounter foreign military jets?
Say you're flying an amateur-built plane just out over the waters of, say, Alaska. And then you encounter a fleet of maybe 5 foreign military jets directly above you, and then you get radio transmissions from the group in Russian. Well, what should a pilot do? The pilot doesn't understand Russian and is clearly not over any foreign airspace as the pilot is flying less than 20 miles south from the shores of Alaska, which shouldn't be somewhere that foreign military jets should be scaring pilots.
Would heading back to shore really be a good idea? The jets could potentially be hostile. So, what would be the wisest decision in this sort of scenario?

See also https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/87354/what-is-the-expected-reaction-of-a-civil-airliner-pilot-upon-an-invalid-request

Voting to reopen. There are intenationally applicable rules describing how to respond to being intercepted.

Perhaps, but the question isn't worded clearly enough to presume an actual legitimate intercept has occurred such that international rules are applicable.  I.e. "directly above" is not an intercept action, (how far above?) if the pilot doesn't speak Russian then how could he/she possible know the comms were directed at them?  And what might Russian planes be doing inside the US coastal ADIZ?  Are you confident in your recognition?!  Sorry, but this is just another random "what if" scenario triggered by recent news events.  And I would bet if you searched you would find a dupe on intercepts.

According to ICAO conventions the offical international language of aviation is English therefore it is unlikely that Russian fighter pilots will speak in Russian to a foreign pilot. If the pilot overlfying American waters, it's unlikely that Russian fighters are free to intercept planes in American airspace.
If such scenario happens, the pilot can report the situation to the ATC, then the situation will quickly escalate. If the private pilot is in American airspace and Russian fighters are not authorised, the private pilot should be safe following ATC directions and/or continue the route as planned. USAF will take care of the rest.

So will reporting the situation to the ATC cause USAF to arrive?

Yes to protect the private pilot

Is there a chance that the problem will escalate? Would it be wise to head to shore to avoid getting caught in any potential conflicts?

It would be a huge diplomatic issue. Regardless of the orders received, everyone (fighter pilots included) can choose to do whatever they want disregarding any law, but everything has consequences. The safest thing to do is probably to get on the ground as quickly as possible (ditching included) though a small private plane can do little against fighter jets

@Afe, so if you are less than 20 miles from the shoreline of Alaska you would just ditch in the frigid ocean if you saw fighters, rather than turning back towards US airspace?  (Because I don’t understand Russian, but my first guess is that they might want me to go back to where I came from...)

If foreign fighter jets were to enter U.S. airspace, USAF would be on them in a matter of minutes, prolly even before they cross into the airspace.


text:
How do I decide the tail dimensions and the distance between the wings for a bi plane?
So I am designing a biplane,I know the weight.I want to know what is  the lift formula , volume ratio and aspect ratio for a biplane? I know the formulas for monoplane

What calculations in particular are you asking about? Are you trying to design a biplane, or to measure the wing and tail area of an existing one? Please [edit] your question with more details.

Yes sir,I am designing a new biplane. I want to know  how is the lift formula, volume ratio and aspect ratio different from the conventional one....so I know the weight of my plane ,I have to calculate the wing dimensions and tail dimensions...I know the method for conventional plane. .

You need to do a few research on the internet,there are articles on google that'll help you understand these basics....Lift formula,aspect ratio,reynolds number etc.....mostly on the net,just do your research.Goodluck man.@sai teja

So I have actually gone through the basics. So the thing is in the net I wasn't able to find any calculations for biplane,so I thought stack exchange was the place !

Hi Sai, welcome to aviation.SE. Unfortunately I feel that despite your edits your question is not really answerable as it is now. It would either require an overly long answer, or assume that you know things that you might not know. It would be better if you could focus on a specific point (for example, "given wing load factor, MTOW, and top speed, what is the formula to dimension the main wing of a biplane?") and ask other specific questions separately, this will help both you and us. You can also look here for guidance on how to ask: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask

@Federico Thank you sir. I'm new to stack exchange and I do not know how these forums work.Thanks alot for your guidance , I really appreciate it

They are the same, but you have to use the total area of both wings multiplied by an interference factor that will be $<1$ to represent the loss of efficiency due to interference between both wing planes.

Oh ok thank you sir!...how do I get the interference factor..  also I have edited my question.so I want to know from the design point of view how is it different from a monoplane

There is a wealth of information from existing designs.  Generally, the horizontal stabilizer needs to be large enough to counteract the nose up pitching tendency of the wing at higher angles of attack.  Also it should be of a lower aspect ratio so the wing stalls first.  Building models and flying them is hugely helpful in gaining expertise in design.  Interference between wings can be improved by putting one ahead of the other, and by increasing space between them.


text:
In xflr5,how is the value of Fz calculated?
I am building an conventional plane with AR=6 and I find the wing area,A.So I have selected an airfoil  for building my plane that is sd7062. Using xflr5 I got a cl vs alpha graph and I took the cl value at 4 degrees . using this cl value I calculated my lift and equated to the weight of my plane which is 2kg*9.81=19.6N .now equating L=W I find the area ,A and using this area and aspect ratio 6 or 7 I  calculate the span and chord .Now when  I do an analysis for the wing dimensions I got and plot a graph between Fz(lift) and alpha graph and find that at 4 degrees the Fz value is 13.078N ....why is there a decrease in my lift.....if there's a decrease then are the calculations I have done wrong?..please help me out]1

Difference due to 3D effects (finite wing)?

Sir,can you elaborate please?

Does your wing have any twist or taper?

no twist, no taper just a simple rectangular wing...

When you have taken the Cl of the airfoil concerned, the Co-efficient refers to an infinite wing. You have to compute the CL of the wing, which refers to a finite wing, taking into consideration the 3D nature of the flow.

So does this mean I have to build my wing with more area?

Given you have tested this for 10 m/s velocity, I would suggest you to either increase your velocity or increase the wing area. Both of which will work.


text:
Can a turbofan engine have less noise so that it doesn't disturb our ears?
A few years back I have seen that Pratt and Whitney 's Geared Turbofan Engine(GTF) has reduced it's noise levels to about 50%. But recently I was having a discussion with a friend and he told me that there is an engine which has the noise levels reduced to about 10%.I tried searching on the net couldn't find any such engine .Is that even possible?
Considering the fact that the most of the noise is from the engine main exhaust.
 Thanks in advance

Manufacturers have noise reduction objectives and commitments with civil aviation international bodies (e.g. ICAO Annex 16). See this summary. The document confirms the jet noise is the largest one at take off (so the GTF is relevant), but not on approach.

Turbofans already produce much less noise than the turbojets used in the 1960s. In general, the higher the bypass ratio, the lower the noise level.
It's difficult to silence a jet engine: any silencer impedes the airflow which means a significant power loss.
Noise levels are usually expressed in dB rather than %, a reduction by 90% is a 20 dB difference, which is huge.
To give an impression: from 1992 to 2000 NASA ran a technology development program aimed at reducing noise by 6 dB.
This chart shows various noise sources in an engine:

Here is an overview of the noise regulations currently in effect:

So Stage 3 is a reduction by 10 dB compared to Stage 2, Stage 4 is a reduction by 7 dB. The quietest aircraft are already at 17 dB below the Stage 4 limit.
So an engine that 'has the noise levels reduced to about 10%' seems plausible (depending on what you're comparing to), and the graphic identifies a few candidates.


text:
Turbofan design parameters
I am writing a model for LM Prepar3D to simulate the flight model of a commercial airliner.
The specification I am following requires some parameters from the engine (CFM56).
PRF(j)           Fan compression ratio of engine j (PRF = Ptf/Pt∞)
Ptf        Pa    Fan exit stagnation pressure
Pt∞        Pa    Infinite upstream stagnation pressure

j is the engine number (left or right)

I have googled these parameters, but I haven't found any way to calculate these. Do they depend on the throttle setting? Or are they fixed on a per engine model basis?
EDIT: These data are needed to model the aerodynamic coefficients (coeff lift, coeff drag and moments) and not the engine itself. My problem is that I need to understand how to calculate PRF(j) but I don't know whether it's easier to find PRF(j) or to obtain it from the ratio between Ptf and Pt∞.

Your question doesn’t make complete sense, because to model the performance of an engine, you need a lot more parameters than the 3 listed. In addition, the first one can be calculated from the second two, so, aside from missing many parameters from the list, you also have unnecessary duplication.
Let’s start at the end:

Infinite upstream stagnation pressure: This is the ambient total pressure. It’s a function of ambient static pressure (which is a function of altitude) and Mach number of the aircraft.
Fan exit stagnation pressure. This is the total pressure at the exit of the fan. It’s a function of the fan inlet total pressure (which is equal to the item above, except for small losses that occur in the intake duct), and rpm of the fan (and hence throttle angle).
Fan pressure ratio. As shown in you question, this is given by the division of the exit pressure by the first term. Typically, for a single stage civil fan, this is about 1.8.

What I am modelling are the aerodynamic coefficients (coeff lift, coeff drag and moments) and not the engine itself. PRF(j) where j is the engine number (left or right) is the number that I need in the formula but I don't know whether it's easier to find PRF(j) or to obtain it from the ratio between Ptf and Pt∞.
Your answer is very helpful! So when it comes to calculate the fan exit stagnation pressure: the rpm of the fan is a direct function of N1, is it right?

@Afe then you should state so in your original question. Please edit your OP to include all the detail you can about what you're after, otherwise people will be just guessing as Penguin did.

@Afe. OK, but I don’t see how the engine performance has any connection whatsoever with aerodynamic aspects of the wing or aircraft  (coefficient of lift, drag and moments). So, still confusing. Nevertheless, I would suggest if the desire is for PRF(j), the most logical way to obtain that is from Pt infinity and Ptf. The rpm of the fan and N1 are exactly the same thing, just different names. The 1.8 figure I quoted I should have indicated is a typical fan pressure ratio of a single stage fan at max rpm.

I haven't personally written the equations of the flight model (217 pages to be accurate), but I am writing the code to test them in Prepar3D (as I have written in the introduction): this is why I am asking for clarifications. The PRF is required multiple times i.e. to calculate Cl due to engines jet effect on the HTP or the incremental drag due to thrust reversers. Pt∞ is a given data from the simulator, but now what is the relation between rpm of the fan and Ptf?

@Afe. The relationship between rpm of the fan and Ptf is given by the compressor map of the fan. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressor_map


text:
Partial panel power on stall under the hood
What do you use for control and performance instruments while demonstrating power on stall under the hood with attitude and heading indicator covered (No vacuum instruments in 6 packs ) ?

You may clarify your question e.g. by adding context. You can take a tour in the help center to understand what kind of formulation is best suited for this website. I think your question is "In IFR with partial panel, how to recover from a stall?" but I'm not quite sure.

Same as any partial panel work.  Altimeter is primary for pitch attitude.  Airspeed is secondary for pitch attitude (its indications complement the altitude data, and in a climb/descent it becomes a primary pitch indicator) and also for power setting in concert with RPM/MP.
VSI is generally considered too laggy to use for assisting in fine pitch control when partial panel and is only useful to confirm a stabilized climb/descent, because its indication might be 2-3 seconds behind what is happening at any instant.
Then it's turn and bank or turn coordinator for roll and away you go.
If you were told to do a power on stall in level flight it's pretty straightforward, just hold the altitude by altimeter watching the speed decrease, decreasing the power to get on the back side of the power curve than increasing it along with pitch to hold the altitude until the stall occurs.
If you are told to do a power on stall with a high power setting in a climb, it's a bit trickier because you have to try to judge that your pitch attitude increase is not excessive by the rate of change in altitude and airspeed.  In that case you might use the VSI to establish the stabilized rate of climb at the start of the exercise, then add just enough increasing pitch to get a gradual speed decrease from that climb state, adding pitch to maintain that decay rate of speed until the stall.